Cost-effectiveness analysis of cabozantinib as second-line therapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Promising first-line immuno-combination therapies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death all over the world, and brings a heavy social economic burden especially in China. Several immuno-combination therapies have shown promising efficacy in the first-line treatment of unresectable HCC and are widely used in clinical practice. Nevertheless, which combination is the most affordable one is unknown. Our study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the immuno-combinations as first-line treatment for patients with unresectable HCC from the perspective of Chinese payers.

METHODS

A Markov model was built according to five multicenter, phase III, open-label, randomized trials (Himalaya, IMbrave150, ORIENT-32, CARES-310, LEAP-002) to investigate the cost-effectiveness of tremelimumab plus durvalumab (STRIDE), atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A + B), sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar (IBI305) (S + B), camrelizumab plus rivoceranib (C + R), and pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib (P + L). Three disease states were included: progression free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD) as well as death. Medical costs were searched from West China Hospital, published literatures or the Red Book. Cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were evaluated to compare costs among different combinations. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robust of the model.

RESULTS

The total cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of C + R, S + B, P + L, A + B and STRIDE were $12,109.27 and 0.91, $26,961.60 and 1.12, $55,382.53 and 0.83, $70,985.06 and 0.90, $84,589.01 and 0.73, respectively, resulting in the most cost-effective strategy of C + R with CER of $13,306.89 per QALY followed by S + B with CER of $24,072.86 per QALY. Compared with C + R, the ICER of S + B strategy was $70,725.38 per QALY, which would become the most cost-effective when the willing-to-pay threshold exceeded $73,500/QALY. In the subgroup analysis, with the application of Asia results in Leap-002 trial, the model results were the same as global data. In the sensitivity analysis, with the variation of parameters, the results were robust.

CONCLUSION

As one of the promising immuno-combination therapies in the first-line systemic treatment of HCC, camrelizumab plus rivoceranib demonstrated the potential to be the most cost-effective strategy, which warranted further studies to best inform the real-world clinical practices.

The value of second-line anti-HER2 therapy in metastatic HER-2 positive patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis in China

Background

Breast cancer (BC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide. The inevitability of drug resistance to initial anti-HER-2 therapy necessitates the emergence of second-line anti-HER-2 drugs which exhibit a promising outlook. Consequently, it is imperative to appraise their efficacy through network meta-analysis and ascertain their comparative cost-effectiveness.

Methods

The data used in our analysis were acquired from patients enrolled in the EMILIA, DESTINY-Breast03, and PHOEBE phase III randomized clinical trials. A partitioned survival model was used for patients diagnosed with HER-2-positive metastatic Breast cancer. The model was crafted with a time horizon of 10 years, operating on a 21-day cycle and incorporating a 5% discount rate for both costs and outcomes. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $36,058.06 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The impact of parameter uncertainty on the findings was assessed using a one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and probability sensitivity analysis.

Findings

Within the model encompassing 1782 patients, the utilization of pyrotinib plus capecitabine (PC) treatment yielded an additional 0.70 QALY in comparison to T-DM1, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $31,121.53 per QALY gained. Similarly, the administration of T-DXd treatment led to an additional 0.80 QALY compared to T-DM1, resulting in an ICER of $153,950.19 per QALY gained. The PC strategies are considered more cost-effective than T-DXd when the WTP threshold is set at $36,058.06 per QALY. However, this method is not cost effective for T-DXd. The probability of the PC strategies being cost-effective was 62%, whereas the probability of T-DXd was 0% when compared to T-DM1.

Conclusion

PC is a cost-effective therapy for patients afflicted with HER-2-positive metastatic BC compared to T-DM1 from the perspective of China at a WTP threshold of $36,058.06 per QALY. Nevertheless, T-DXd is not as cost-effective as T-DM1, considering its current medication pricing. Therefore, reducing the cost of T-DXd could improve its overall cost-effectiveness.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Beyond the Border of Advanced Stage Therapy

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the deadliest emergent health issue around the globe. The stronger oncogenic effect, proteins, and weakened immune response are precisely linked with a significant prospect of developing HCC. Several conventional systemic therapies, antiangiogenic therapy, and immunotherapy techniques have significantly improved the outcomes for early-, intermediate-, and advanced-stage HCC patients, giving new hope for effective HCC management and prolonged survival rates. Innovative therapeutic approaches beyond conventional treatments have altered the landscape of managing HCC, particularly focusing on targeted therapies and immunotherapies. The advancement in HCC treatment suggested by the Food and Drug Administration is multidimensional treatment options, including multikinase inhibitors (sorafenib, lenvatinib, regorafenib, ramucirumab, and cabozantinib) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (atezolizumab, pembrolizumab, durvalumab, tremelimumab, ipilimumab, and nivolumab), in monotherapy and in combination therapy to increase life expectancy of HCC patients. This review highlights the efficacy of multikinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors in monotherapy and combination therapy through the analysis of phase II, and III clinical trials, targeting the key molecular pathways involved in cellular signaling and immune response for the prospective treatment of advanced and unresectable HCC and discusses the upcoming combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors-tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors-vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors. Finally, the hidden challenges with pharmacological therapy for HCC, feasible solutions for the future, and implications of possible presumptions to develop drugs for HCC treatment are reported.

Systemic Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To update an evidence-based guideline to assist in clinical decision-making for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

ASCO convened an Expert Panel to update the 2020 guideline on systemic therapy for HCC. The panel updated the systematic review to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through October 2023 and updated recommendations.

RESULTS

Ten new RCTs met the inclusion criteria and were added to the evidence base.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Atezolizumab + bevacizumab (atezo + bev) or durvalumab + tremelimumab (durva + treme) may be offered first-line for patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1. Where there are contraindications to these therapies, sorafenib, lenvatinib, or durvalumab may be offered first-line. Following first-line treatment with atezo + bev, second-line therapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), ramucirumab (for patients with alpha-fetoprotein [AFP] ≥400 ng/mL), durva + treme, or nivolumab + ipilimumab (nivo + ipi) may be recommended for appropriate candidates. Following first-line therapy with durva + treme, second-line therapy with a TKI is recommended. Following first-line treatment with sorafenib or lenvatinib, second-line therapy options include cabozantinib, regorafenib for patients who previously tolerated sorafenib, ramucirumab (AFP ≥400 ng/mL), nivo + ipi, or durvalumab; atezo + bev or durva + treme may be considered for patients who did not have access to these therapies in the first-line setting, and do not have contraindications. Pembrolizumab or nivolumab are also options for appropriate patients following sorafenib or lenvatinib. Third-line therapy may be considered in Child-Pugh class A patients with good PS, using one of the agents listed previously that has a nonidentical mechanism of action with previously received therapy. A cautious approach to systemic therapy is recommended for patients with Child-Pugh class B advanced HCC. Further guidance on choosing between options is included within the guideline.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.

ER stress signaling at the interphase between MASH and HCC

HCC is the most frequent primary liver cancer with an extremely poor prognosis and often develops on preset of chronic liver diseases. Major risk factors for HCC include metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis, a complex multifactorial condition associated with abnormal endoplasmic reticulum (ER) proteostasis. To cope with ER stress, the unfolded protein response engages adaptive reactions to restore the secretory capacity of the cell. Recent advances revealed that ER stress signaling plays a critical role in HCC progression. Here, we propose that chronic ER stress is a common transversal factor contributing to the transition from liver disease (risk factor) to HCC. Interventional strategies to target the unfolded protein response in HCC, such as cancer therapy, are also discussed.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Camrelizumab Plus Rivoceranib Versus Sorafenib as a First-Line Therapy for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the Chinese Health Care System

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Camrelizumab plus rivoceranib showed significant clinical benefits in progression-free survival and overall survival compared to sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aimed to assess its cost effectiveness from the perspective of Chinese health care system.

METHODS

A Markov state-transition model was developed based on the Phase 3 randomized CARES-310 clinical trial data. Health state utility values were obtained from the CARES-310 clinical trial, and direct medical costs were derived from the relevant literature and local charges. The measured outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty of the model.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, the incremental effectiveness and cost of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib versus sorafenib were 0.41 QALYs and $13,684.84, respectively, resulting in an ICER of $33,619.98/QALY, lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of China ($35,864.61/QALY). Subgroup analyses revealed that the ICERs of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib versus sorafenib were $35,920.01 and $29,717.98 in patients with ALBI grade 1 and grade 2, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses indicated that the cost of camrelizumab, the proportion of patients receiving subsequent treatment in the camrelizumab plus rivoceranib group, and the cost of rivoceranib were the most significant factors in the base-case analysis. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that the probabilities of cost effectiveness of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib were 61.27%, 51.46%, and 82.78% for any grade, and ALBI grade 1 and grade 2, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Camrelizumab plus rivoceranib was more cost effective than sorafenib as first-line therapy for unresectable HCC in the Chinese setting.

Comparative analysis of disease modelling for health economic evaluations of systemic therapies in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to systematically analyse methodological and structural assumptions utilised in model-based health economic evaluations of systemic advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) therapies, discuss the existing challenges, and develop methodological recommendations for future models in advanced HCC.

METHODS

We performed literature searches using five databases (Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Econlit, and CNKI) up to December 4, 2022. Technology appraisals from Canada, England, Australia, and the United States were also considered. Model-based full economic evaluations of systemic advanced HCC therapies in English or Chinese met the eligibility criteria. The reporting quality was assessed by using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist.

RESULTS

Of 12,863 records retrieved, 55 were eligible for inclusion. Markov model (n = 29, 53%) and partitioned survival model (n = 27, 49%) were the most commonly used modelling techniques. Most studies were based on health-state-driven structure (n = 51, 93%), followed by treatment-line-driven structure (n = 2, 4%) and combination structure (n = 1, 2%). Only three studies (5%) adopted external real-world data to extrapolate the overall survival or calibrate the extrapolation. Few studies reported the assumptions of transition probabilities. Utility modelling approaches were state-based (n = 51, 93%) and time-to-death (n = 1, 2%). Only 13 studies (24%) reported five types of model validation. Economic evaluation results of specific treatment strategies varied among studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Disease modelling for health economic evaluations of systemic therapies in advanced HCC has adopted various modelling approaches and assumptions, leading to marked uncertainties in results. By proposing methodological recommendations, we suggest that future model-based studies for health economic evaluation of HCC therapies should follow good modelling practice guidelines and improve modelling methods to generate reliable health and economic evidence.

Potential Immunotherapy Targets for Liver-Directed Therapies, and the Current Scope of Immunotherapeutics for Liver-Related Malignancies

Liver cancer, including hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, is increasing in incidence and mortality across the globe. An improved understanding of the complex tumor microenvironment has opened many therapeutic doors and led to the development of novel pharmaceuticals targeting cellular signaling pathways or immune checkpoints. These interventions have significantly improved tumor control rates and patient outcomes, both in clinical trials and in real-world practice. Interventional radiologists play an important role in the multidisciplinary team given their expertise in minimally invasive locoregional therapy, as the bulk of these tumors are usually in the liver. The aim of this review is to highlight the immunological therapeutic targets for primary liver cancers, the available immune-based approaches, and the contributions that interventional radiology can provide in the care of these patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for intermediate- to high-risk localized prostate cancer

Background

Radiotherapy is an effective curative treatment option for intermediate- to high-risk localized prostate cancer. According to the HYPO-RT-PC trial (ISRCTN45905321), there was no significant difference in 5 years of follow-up in terms of failure-free survival, overall survival, urinary toxicity, and bowel toxicity, while erectile function decreased between ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy with conventionally fractionated radiotherapy, except that the incidence of urinary toxicity in ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy was higher at 1 year of follow-up. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for intermediate- to high-risk localized prostate cancer from the Chinese payer's perspective.

Methods

We developed a Markov model with a 15-year time horizon to compare the cost and effectiveness of ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy with those of conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for localized intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer. The outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and willingness-to-pay (WTP). Univariable and probability sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the Markov model.

Results

Based on the Markov model, conventionally fractionated radiotherapy yielded 2.32 QALYs compared with 2.14 QALYs in ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy in China. The cost of ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy was found to be decreased by about 14% folds ($4,251.04) in comparison with that of conventionally fractionated radiotherapy. The ICER of conventionally fractionated radiotherapy versus that of ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy was $23,616.89 per QALY in China. The failure-free survival with grade 2 or worse urinary toxicity and the discount rate per annum were the most sensitive parameters utilized in ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed that conventionally fractionated radiotherapy had 57.7% probability of being cost-effective under the Chinese WTP threshold.

Conclusion

From the perspective of Chinese payers, ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy was not a cost-effective strategy compared with conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with localized intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer. Nevertheless, reduction of the grade 2 or worse urinary toxicity of ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy could alter the results.

Immunotherapy or targeted therapy as the first-line strategies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

Introduction

The existence of many phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) puzzle doctors and patients in choosing the most effective treatment strategies. We aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy or targeted therapy as the first-line strategy for unresectable HCC.

Methods

The included clinical trials were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, and Web of Science databases, in which immunotherapy or targeted therapy was regarded as the first-line treatment for unresectable HCC, published in English between January 1, 2010, and September 20, 2022. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) from the Chinese payer's perspective. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), the ranks of different treatments using P-score, and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated by NMA. Total costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-benefit ratio (ICER) were estimated from 15-year Markov models developed by CEA.

Results

We identified 2,825 records, including 11,796 patients, from 15 RCTs. The NMA revealed that sintilimab plus a bevacizumab biosimilar (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.75; P = 0.96) and camrelizumab plus rivoceranib (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.66; P = 0.94) could lead to great improvements in OS and PFS compared with sorafenib-related survival. The CEA indicated that tislelizumab increased by 0.220 QALYs (0.312 LYs) and decreased by $1,938 compared with sorafenib, which yielded ICERs of -$8,809/QALY (-$2,612/LY). Sensitivity analysis showed that the model was stable.

Conclusion

Sintilimab plus a bevacizumab biosimilar and camrelizumab plus rivoceranib significantly prolonged OS and PFS, respectively. Further considering the pharmacoeconomics factors, tislelizumab is the most cost-effective first-line treatment strategy for unresectable HCC in China.

Trastuzumab deruxtecan versus trastuzumab emtansine for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

DESTINY-Breast03 (NCT03529110) was the first global phase III study to assess the antitumor activity of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) compared to trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) in 2022. However, the balance between efficacy and cost of T-DXd remains unclear. As a result, the present study's goal is to investigate the cost-effectiveness of T-DXd vs T-DM1 as a second-line treatment for patients with HER2-positive MBC from the US and Chinese payer's perspectives.

METHODS

A Markov model with a 20-year time horizon was developed to evaluate the overall cost of patient treatment, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and life-years (LYs) in the US and China at WTP levels of 150,000/QALY and 37,653/QALY, respectively (3 times GDP per capita in 2021). Key data were gathered from the US government's official website, the Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, and published literature. To determine the model's stability, a sensitivity analysis was performed. A subgroup analysis was also implemented.

RESULTS

Compared with T-DM1, treatment with T-DXd generated an additional 1.672 QALYs (2.796 LYs), resulting in an ICER of $13,342/QALY (US) and $186,017/QALY (China). The cost of drugs is the most influential factor in the American and Chinese models. Subgroup analysis revealed that the T-DXd and T-DM1 regimens were more cost-effective at reducing the risk of death in the US and Chinese HER2-positive MBC patients.

CONCLUSION

T-DXd as second-line treatment could gain more health benefits for HER2-positive MBC patients in comparison with T-DM1, which is considered to be cost-effective in the US but not in China.

Economic evaluation of margetuximab vs. trastuzumab for pretreated ERBB2-positive advanced breast cancer in the US and China

Objective

To assess the economic evaluation of margetuximab plus chemotherapy over trastuzumab plus chemotherapy for women with pretreated ERBB2-positive advanced breast cancer in the United States (US) and China.

Methods

Based on the SOPHIA trial, a three-state Markov model was developed to compare the cost and efficacy of margetuximab to trastuzumab for previously treated women with ERBB2-positive advanced breast cancer. The model inputs were derived from existing literature and the US life table. Primary outcomes included lifetime costs in US dollars, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the impact of uncertainty.

Results

The base case analyses demonstrated that margetuximab plus chemotherapy had an increasing cost of $68,132 and $20,540 over trastuzumab plus chemotherapy in the US and China, respectively, with a gain of 0.11 and 0.09 QALYs both favored margetuximab. The ICERs for two treatment strategies were $260,176 in the US and $630,777 in China, resulting in a poor cost-effectiveness at their respective threshold of willingness to play. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the results to be most sensitive to the price of margetuximab and that of trastuzumab. And an 11 and 82% price reduction of margetuximab would make this regimen cost-effective in the US and China, respectively.

Conclusion

In the US and China, margetuximab plus chemotherapy is not likely to be cost-effective for women with pretreated ERBB2-positive advanced breast cancer, whereas price reduction effectively improves insufficient cost-effectiveness.

Cost-Effectiveness of Apatinib and Cabozantinib for the Treatment of Radioiodine-Refractory Differentiated Thyroid Cancer

Background: The effectiveness of apatinib and cabozantinib for the treatment of radioactive iodine–refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RAIR-DTC) has been demonstrated recently. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these treatments from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Methods: Two partitioned survival models over a 10-year horizon were built to compare the cost and effectiveness of apatinib vs. placebo and cabozantinib vs. placebo based on the clinical data from the phase 3 randomized REALITY and COSMIC-311 trials. Costs and utility data were obtained from the literature and institutional database. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of the conclusion.

Results: Apatinib yielded an additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.74 at an additional cost of Chinese Renminbi ¥44,077. The ICER was ¥93,460 (US dollar $13545)/QALY and it was below the current willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of ¥217341/QALY. Cabozantinib was associated with an additional QALY of 0.79 at an extra cost of ¥3,55,614 when compared with placebo, and the ICER was ¥4,52,325 ($65,554)/QALY, which was above the WTP threshold. The conclusion were robust under one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The price of cabozantinib has to drop to ¥5.87/mg (39% of the current price) for it has a 50% likelihood of being cost-effective.

Conclusion: Apatinib is cost-effective for RAIR-DTC when compared with placebo from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. However, based on the current evidence, cabozantinib might not be cost-effective and a reduction of price is warranted.

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is associated with significant financial burden for patients and payers. The objective of this study was to review economic models to identify, evaluate, and compare cost-effectiveness estimates for HCC treatments.

METHODS

A systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify economic evaluations was performed and studies that modeled treatments for HCC reporting costs and cost effectiveness were included. Risk of bias was assessed qualitatively, considering costing approach, reported study perspective, and funding received. Intervention costs were adjusted to 2021 US dollars for comparison. For studies reporting quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), we conducted analyses stratified by comparison type to assess cost effectiveness at the time of the analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 27 studies were included. Non-curative versus non-curative therapy comparisons were used in 20 (74.1%) studies, curative versus curative comparisons were used in 5 (18.5%) studies, and curative versus non-curative comparisons were used in 2 (7.4%) studies. Therapy effectiveness was estimated using a QALY measure in 20 (74.1%) studies, while 7 (25.9%) studies only assessed life-years gained (LYG). A health sector perspective was used in 26 (96.3%) of the evaluations, with only 1 study including costs beyond this perspective. Median intervention cost was $53,954 (range $4550-$4,760,835), with a median incremental cost of $6546 (range - $72,441 to $1,279,764). In cost-utility analyses, 11 (55%) studies found the intervention cost effective using a $100,000/QALY threshold at the time of the study, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ranging from - $1,176,091 to $1,152,440 when inflated to 2021 US dollars.

CONCLUSION

The majority of HCC treatments were found to be cost effective, but with significant variation and with few studies considering indirect costs. Standards for value assessment for HCC treatments may help improve consistency and comparability.

Neo-adjuvant radiation therapy provides a survival advantage in T3-T4 nodal positive gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: a SEER database analysis

BACKGROUND

Due to negative results in clinical trials of postoperative chemoradiation for gastric cancer, at present, there is a tendency to move chemoradiation therapy forward in gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are currently recruiting subjects to investigate the effect of neo-adjuvant radiotherapy (NRT) in gastric and GEJ cancer. Large retrospective studies may be beneficial in clarifying the potential benefit of NRT, providing implications for RCTs.

METHODS

We retrieved the clinicopathological and treatment data of gastric and GEJ adenocarcinoma patients who underwent surgical resection and chemotherapy between 2004 and 2015 from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. We compared survival between NRT and non-NRT patients among four clinical subgroups (T_1-2N^-, T_1-2N⁺, T_3-4N^-, and T_3-4N⁺).

RESULTS

Overall, 5272 patients were identified, among which 1984 patients received NRT. After adjusting confounding variables, significantly improved survival between patients with and without NRT was only observed in T_3-4N⁺ subgroup [hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.66-0.95; P = 0.01]. Besides, Kaplan-Meier plots showed significant cause-specific survival advantage of NRT in intestinal type (P <  0.001), but not in diffuse type (P = 0.11) for T_3-4N⁺ patients. In the multivariate competing risk model, NRT still showed survival advantage only in T_3-4 N⁺ patients (subdistribution HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.64-0.93; P = 0.006), but not in other subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

NRT might benefit resectable gastric and GEJ cancer patients of T3-4 stages with positive lymph nodes, particularly for intestinal-type. Nevertheless, these results should be interpreted with caution, and more data from ongoing RCTs are warranted.

Atezolizumab and bevacizumab combination compared with sorafenib as the first-line systemic treatment for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis in China and the United states

BACKGROUND & AIMS

In patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival compared with sorafenib in the IMbrave150 trial. However, whether the price of the combination could be affordable is unknown. The current study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab as first-line systemic therapy for patients with unresectable HCC from the Chinese and American payers' perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model was built based on a global, multicentre, open-label, phase III randomized trial (IMbrave150, NCT03434379) that included three states of the patient's health: stable disease (SD), progressive disease (PD) and death. Data for all medical costs were acquired from the Red Book, published literature and West China Hospital. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were the primary outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty.

RESULTS

The treatment consisting of a combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab yielded an additional 0.53 QALYs compared with sorafenib alone, leading to an ICER of $145,546.21 per QALY in China and $168,030.21 per QALY in the USA, both beyond the willing-to-pay threshold ($28,527.00/QALY in China and $150,000.00 /QALY in the USA). The utility of the PD state was the most influential factor in the Chinese model, and the American model was the most sensitive to the price of sorafenib. The results of the models were robust across sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab was not a cost-effective strategy for the first-line systemic treatment of unresectable HCC from the Chinese and American payers' perspective.

Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab vs Sorafenib for Patients With Unresectable or Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma

IMPORTANCE

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as a first-line therapy for patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma has been shown to improve overall and progression-free survival compared with standard sorafenib treatment. However, because of the high cost of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, assessment of its value by considering both efficacy and cost is needed.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib for patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma from a US payer perspective.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic evaluation was performed from June through September 2020, with a 6-year investment time period. Hypothetical patients were male and female adults 18 years or older who had a diagnosis of locally advanced metastatic or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma confirmed by histologic or clinical features.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Health care costs (adjusted to 2020 US dollars), life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib were examined using a partitioned survival model. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to examine model uncertainty. The model was also used to estimate price reductions of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab that would achieve more favorable cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis of a hypothetical sample of 424 patients, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with an increase of 0.623 life-years (1.840 vs 1.218 life-years) and 0.484 QALYs (1.412 vs 0.928 QALYs) and with an incremental cost of $156 210 per patient compared with sorafenib. The ICER was $322 500 per QALY (5th to 95th percentile, $149 364-$683 744 per QALY), with 0.6% and 5.1% chance of being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100 000 and $150 000 per QALY, respectively. The ICER never decreased below $150 000 per QALY in the 1-way sensitivity analyses. To achieve more favorable cost-effectiveness under the thresholds of $150 000 to $100 000 per QALY, the prices of atezolizumab and bevacizumab would need to be reduced by 37% to 47%.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this economic evaluation, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with clinical benefit but was not cost-effective compared with sorafenib for first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma from a US payer perspective. A substantial reduction in price for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab would be needed to achieve favorable cost-effectiveness for this new therapy.

The Role of Cabozantinib as a Therapeutic Option for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Current Landscape and Future Challenges

The systemic treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has significantly changed over the last years, with the introduction of two new standard-of-care first-line treatments (lenvatinib and the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab) and the success of several new agents in second line. In particular, after the approval of regorafenib, ramucirumab and cabozantinib, the landscape of second-line treatment has become notably complex, providing a serious challenge in clinical practice. In this review, we focus on cabozantinib, a multikinase inhibitor which was proven effective in improving overall and progression-free survival of patients previously treated with sorafenib in the randomized Phase III CELESTIAL trial. CELESTIAL is the only phase III study to have included patients in the third-line setting and cabozantinib efficacy was confirmed in several post hoc analyses, irrespective of alpha-fetoprotein levels, albumin-bilirubin score, age, and duration of previous sorafenib treatment. The safety profile of cabozantinib in the CELESTIAL trial was comparable with other multikinase inhibitors used for HCC and the most frequent grade ≥3 adverse events were diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, fatigue, hypertension, and aspartate aminotransferase increase. Tolerability did not differ between younger and older patients and quality of life was significantly improved compared to placebo during the treatment. In this review, we also make a particular mention to the use of cabozantinib in populations which are normally excluded from clinical trials, such as older patients and Child-Pugh B patients. Finally, we present the new treatment strategies in which cabozantinib is being tested, most notably the combination of cabozantinib and atezolizumab in the first-line setting in the phase III COSMIC-312 trial and the use of cabozantinib after progression on immune-checkpoint inhibitors.

Systemic Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline to assist in clinical decision making for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of published phase III randomized controlled trials (2007-2020) on systemic therapy for advanced HCC and provide recommended care options for this patient population.

RESULTS

Nine phase III randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Atezolizumab + bevacizumab (atezo + bev) may be offered as first-line treatment of most patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) 0-1, and following management of esophageal varices, when present, according to institutional guidelines. Where there are contraindications to atezolizumab and/or bevacizumab, tyrosine kinase inhibitors sorafenib or lenvatinib may be offered as first-line treatment of patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, and ECOG PS 0-1. Following first-line treatment with atezo + bev, and until better data are available, second-line therapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor may be recommended for appropriate candidates. Following first-line therapy with sorafenib or lenvatinib, second-line therapy options for appropriate candidates include cabozantinib, regorafenib for patients who previously tolerated sorafenib, or ramucirumab (for patients with α-fetoprotein ≥ 400 ng/mL), or atezo + bev where patients did not have access to this option as first-line therapy. Pembrolizumab or nivolumab are also reasonable options for appropriate patients following sorafenib or lenvatinib. Consideration of nivolumab + ipilimumab as an option for second-line therapy and third-line therapy is discussed. Further guidance on choosing between therapy options is included within the guideline. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.

Targeting hepatocyte growth factor/c-mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor axis in hepatocellular carcinoma: Rationale and therapeutic strategies

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. The outcome of current standard treatments, as well as targeted therapies in advanced stages, are still unsatisfactory. Attention has been drawn to novel strategies for better treatment efficacy. Hepatocyte growth factor/c-mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor (HGF/c-Met) axis has been known as an essential element in the regulation of liver diseases and as an oncogenic factor in HCC. In this review, we collected the evidence of HGF/c-Met as a tumor progression and prognostic marker, discussed the anti-c-Met therapy in vitro, summarized the outcome of c-Met inhibitors in clinical trials, and identified potential impetus for future anti-c-Met treatments. We also analyzed the inconsistency of HGF/c-Met from various publications and offered reasonable explanations based on the current understanding in this area. In conclusion, HGF/c-Met plays a crucial role in the progression and growth of HCC, and the strategies to inhibit this pathway may facilitate the development of new and effective treatments for HCC patients.

Targeted therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma

The last 3 years have seen the emergence of promising targeted therapies for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Sorafenib has been the mainstay of treatment for a decade and newer modalities were ineffective and did not confer any increased therapeutic benefit until the introduction of lenvatinib which was approved based on its non-inferiority to sorafenib. The subsequent success of regorafenib in HCC patients who progress on sorafenib treatment heralded a new era of second-line treatment and was quickly followed by ramucirumab, cabozantinib, and the most influential, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Over the same period combination therapies, including anti-angiogenesis agents with ICIs, dual ICIs and targeted agents in conjunction with surgery or other loco-regional therapies, have been extensively investigated and have shown promise and provided the basis for exciting clinical trials. Work continues to develop additional novel therapeutic agents which could potentially augment the presently available options and understand the underlying mechanisms responsible for drug resistance, with the goal of improving the survival of patients with HCC.

Cost-Effectiveness of Tucatinib in Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer From the US and Chinese Perspectives

Background: The clinical evaluation of HER2CLIMB trial showed a 21. 9-month median overall survival with the triplet regimens of tucatinib, capecitabine, and trastuzumab (TXT) for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) –overexpressing metastatic breast cancer. From the payer's perspective of the United States and China, a cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to evaluate the costs and benefits of adding tucatinib in this study.

Methods: We constructed a Markov model for the economic evaluation of adding tucatinib to trastuzumab plus capecitabine in patients with HER-2 positive metastatic breast cancer in the United States and China. The model was conducted with a 10-year time horizon, and the health status was divided into three states: progression-free survival, progressing disease, and death. The health utility scores were consistent with published literature with similar patient status. The transition probabilities were derived from the survival data of the HER2CLIMB study. The unit prices of medicines were obtained from the West China Hospital, Red Book, and published literature. Outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which robustness was evaluated by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results: Compared with the two-drug regimen of trastuzumab plus capecitabine (TX), the addition of tucatinib increased 0.21 QALY, with an increasing cost of $146,995.05 and $19,022.97 in the United States and China, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for the TXT versus TX was $699,976.43 in the U.S. and $90,585.57 in China, both of which are higher than their respective threshold of willingness to play. Deterministic sensitivity analysis shows that the price of tucatinib is the parameter that has the most significant impact on ICERs, but it does not change the results of the model. Probability sensitivity analysis shows that the probability of cost-effective for TXT is 0 in the base case.

Conclusion: In the United States and China, tucatinib combined with trastuzumab and capecitabine is not cost-effective for patients with HER-2 positive metastatic breast cancer.

Profile of Cabozantinib for the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Patient Selection and Special Considerations

Management of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma is challenging. With an increasing number of options for the first and second-line treatment, understanding and developing optimal systemic treatment strategies are crucial. In second line, two tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) and one monoclonal antibody have been approved after sorafenib by both the European Medicines Agency and the Food and Drug Administration based on the results of phase 3 trials: cabozantinib, regorafenib and ramucirumab. Cabozantinib has demonstrated an improved overall survival and progression-free survival in the phase 3 CELESTIAL study in second and third line, in patients in good general condition (performance status 0-1) and with a normal liver function Child-Pugh class A. Analysis of subgroups has shown that even elderly patients over 65 years, or patients with high baseline alpha-fetoprotein ≥400 ng/mL benefit from cabozantinib. The choice in second-line between the three drugs should be based on factors such as previous tolerance of sorafenib, safety profile of drugs and quality of life. In this review, we will analyze clinical data available on cabozantinib, clarifying the choice between the different possible treatments. However, the upcoming of a new standard in first line with the combination atezolizumab and bevacizumab will change the game and will warrant further investigations to define the accurate subsequent sequence of TKIs. Cabozantinib is also actually tested in first-line in combination with atezolizumab, results of the phase 3 COSMIC trial are eagerly awaited.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib as second-line therapy for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in Germany and the United States

BACKGROUND

Cabozantinib was approved by the European Medicines Agency and the Federal Drug Administration as an option for sorafenib-resistant advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, increasing overall survival and progression-free survival compared with placebo. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib in the second-line setting for patients with an advanced hepatocellular carcinoma from the German statutory health insurance perspective compared with an US scenario using US prices.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to compare the costs and effectiveness of cabozantinib with best supportive care in the second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma over a lifetime horizon. Health outcomes were measured in discounted life years and discounted quality-adjusted life years. Survival probabilities were estimated using parametric survival distributions based on CELESTIAL trial data. Utilities were derived from the literature. Costs contained drugs, monitoring and adverse events measured in US Dollars. Model robustness was addressed in univariable, scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Cabozantinib generated a gain of 0.18 life years (0.15 quality-adjusted life years) compared with best supportive care. The total mean cost per patient was $56,621 for cabozantinib and $2064 for best supportive care in the German model resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for cabozantinib of $306,778/life year and $375,470/quality-adjusted life year. Using US prices generated costs of $177,496 for cabozantinib and $4630 for best supportive care and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $972,049/life year and $1,189,706/quality-adjusted life year.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis established that assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $163,371/life year (quality-adjusted life year) for the German model and $188,559/life year (quality-adjusted life year) for the US model, cabozantinib is not cost-effective compared with best supportive care. Sensitivity analyses showed that cabozantinib was not cost-effective in almost all our scenarios.

Systemic Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Advances and Hopes

The majority of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are diagnosed at an advanced stage that can only benefit from systemic treatments. Although HCC is highly treatmentresistant, significant achievements have been made in the molecular targeted therapy and immunotherapy of HCC. In addition to regorafenib, cabozantinib and ramucirumab were approved for the second- line targeted treatment by the FDA after disease progression on sorafenib. Nivolumab failed to demonstrate remarkable benefit in overall survival (OS) as first-line therapy, while pembrolizumab did not achieve pre-specified statistical significance in both OS and progression-free survival (PFS) as second-line treatment. Combinations of targeted agents, immune checkpoint inhibitors and other interventions showed favorable results. In this review, we summarized the progress of systemic therapy in HCC and discussed the future directions of the treatment of HCC.